vanhornluke wrote:it presents an exception to the general rule, just like the Spidey/Red Sonja crossover with Dynamite, or the Spidey/Savage Dragon crossover with Image.

I don't see Savage Dragon listed in the Project either. Coincidence?

You're equating a story in Spider-Man Team-Up with a Punisher/Archie crossover. Not the same thing. The Spider-Man/Savage Dragon train wreck was more akin to the Rutland Halloween story that crossed over between Amazing Adventures and Justice League of America. We treated both of those stories the same way. Those are not crossovers, the way we use the term. They were a cute little wink-wink, nudge-nudge between the publishers and their fans.

vanhornluke wrote:it presents an exception to the general rule, just like the Spidey/Red Sonja crossover with Dynamite, or the Spidey/Savage Dragon crossover with Image.

I don't see Savage Dragon listed in the Project either. Coincidence?

You're equating a story in Spider-Man Team-Up with a Punisher/Archie crossover. Not the same thing. The Spider-Man/Savage Dragon train wreck was more akin to the Rutland Halloween story that crossed over between Amazing Adventures and Justice League of America. We treated both of those stories the same way. Those are not crossovers, the way we use the term. They were a cute little wink-wink, nudge-nudge between the publishers and their fans.

I'm not equating them. Clearly there are differences, such as the Savage Dragon crossover taking place within a series that is clearly 616. All I was pointing out is that there clearly is a Savage Dragon who exists in 616, since he's in that issue of Spider-Man Team-Up, and that is his only appearance. The Archie story is in a one-shot, so all else being equal, I would have assumed that it is set on 7642. In fact, I did believe it was 7642 until it was pointed out to me that the handbooks say it is 616. In this special case, all else isn't equal, since Marvel has taken the rare move of officially classifying this story as 616 rather than 7642.

The basic point here is that "shared universe" co-published crossovers are outside the MCP's purview. Spider-Man/Red Sonja gets in through a VERY specific and slightly complicated process, revolving around her already existing in the Marvel Universe because Marvel established that while they had the rights to the character (another important point being that it is an explicit sequel to a M/TU issue *from that period*). There are very few characters that this COULD happen with, and no others where it HAS happened.

Marvel have no rights, and have never had rights, to Archie. So they can't, from our POV, unilaterally declare it to be in the Marvel Universe - we would also need a declaration from ARCHIE that it was so.

vanhornluke wrote:I'm not equating them. Clearly there are differences, such as the Savage Dragon crossover taking place within a series that is clearly 616. All I was pointing out is that there clearly is a Savage Dragon who exists in 616, since he's in that issue of Spider-Man Team-Up, and that is his only appearance. The Archie story is in a one-shot, so all else being equal, I would have assumed that it is set on 7642. In fact, I did believe it was 7642 until it was pointed out to me that the handbooks say it is 616. In this special case, all else isn't equal, since Marvel has taken the rare move of officially classifying this story as 616 rather than 7642.

The "big green cop" was never named or clearly shown in SMTU 5/2, and Savage Dragon/Destroyer Duck is outside our purview again. (And if it WAS something we would consider, we would then need to move all the post-SMTU 5/2 Howard appearances to HOWARD THE DUCK CLONE - Gerber only got away with the "Leonard the Duck" thing *because* Marvel had no control over the Image issue. Further note the fact that, although shadowed heavily, it was clearly Peter Parker's costume that the unnamed webhead was wearing in Savage Dragon/Destroyer Duck, giving proof that the two issues weren't in the same universe, since Ben Reilly was still Spider-Man in SMTU 5/2).

Somebody wrote:Marvel have no rights, and have never had rights, to Archie. So they can't, from our POV, unilaterally declare it to be in the Marvel Universe - we would also need a declaration from ARCHIE that it was so.

As I see it, Marvel isn't declaring that all of Archie/Riverdale exists in the Marvel Universe — just the aspects of Archie/Riverdale that were depicted in that one story.
And, while it obviously doesn't involve the issue of rights, Marvel has declared plenty of public domain works to exist in the Marvel universe, a declaration which some of the original authors might take issue with.

Somebody wrote:Marvel have no rights, and have never had rights, to Archie. So they can't, from our POV, unilaterally declare it to be in the Marvel Universe - we would also need a declaration from ARCHIE that it was so.

As I see it, Marvel isn't declaring that all of Archie/Riverdale exists in the Marvel Universe — just the aspects of Archie/Riverdale that were depicted in that one story.

But Marvel have no rights to DO anything with that one story because of those "aspects of Archie/Riverdale", any more than they have rights to do anything with Afterlife With Archie. The only rights they have are negative ones (i.e., they could block anyone else - like Archie! - trying to reprint it).

If an issue of Punisher from the time made reference to it for promotional purposes (like the setup for the INTER-universe Green Lantern/Silver Surfer crossover in their parent series), we'd have to consider it I suppose. But decades later, when Archie has no interest in it? Nah.

zuckyd1 wrote:And, while it obviously doesn't involve the issue of rights, Marvel has declared plenty of public domain works to exist in the Marvel universe, a declaration which some of the original authors might take issue with.

Steve Gerber took plenty of issue with what Marvel did with Howard the Duck (hence the "Leonard" thing!), but we still have a chronology for him!

Somebody wrote:Marvel have no rights, and have never had rights, to Archie. So they can't, from our POV, unilaterally declare it to be in the Marvel Universe - we would also need a declaration from ARCHIE that it was so.

This is absurd. Marvel has every right to say "Hey, remember that Punisher/Archie crossover? Yeah, that story is set on 616." They don't have the right to unilaterally reprint it, but clearly they can say that as far as Marvel is concerned, that story is 616. This doesn't, as zuckyd pointed out, mean that all of Archie is 616. It's only referring to that one story.

We have plenty of other precedent for Marvel officially declaring that stories they can't legally reprint are 616. For example, they've said that DC vs. Marvel and JLA/Avengers are 616. They've also said that the appearances of Mantis in issues of Justice League of America and Scorpio Rose are the 616 Mantis who was dimension-hopping at the time. The Captain Britain Corps handbook entry references an issue of Top Ten, and the Elf with a Gun entry references an issue of DC's Countdown to Mystery.

And of course, Marvel has officially classified other intercompany crossovers as 7642. If they can't say that Punisher/Archie is 616, then they can't say that Supes/Spidey is 7642. But clearly they can say that Supes/Spidey is 7642, so they can also say that Punisher/Archie is 616.

Regarding Savage Dragon, I wasn't saying that the story published by Image is 616. I was saying the story in Spider-Man Team-Up is 616. Savage Dragon appears in that issue of SMTU, and since it's not an interdimensional crossover story, that's the Savage Dragon from 616, not Image. There's no need to include a Howard-clone for Marvel, since that story only takes place in the Destroyer Duck issue, which is in Image's continuity, not 616.

vanhornluke wrote:We have plenty of other precedent for Marvel officially declaring that stories they can't legally reprint are 616. For example, they've said that DC vs. Marvel and JLA/Avengers are 616.

Which was made clear AT THE TIME (i.e., in mutual arrangement with DC) in both cases. Hell, Busiek even referenced JLA/A in an arc of JLA he wrote afterward.

Plus, again, policy: We cover interuniversal crossovers, where appropriate. Not "shared universe" crossovers (again, Red Sonja's existence in the Marvel Universe predates Dynamite's existence, and the series is an explicit sequel to a story published while Marvel had the rights, so the combination grandfathers it in).

vanhornluke wrote:They've also said that the appearances of Mantis in issues of Justice League of America and Scorpio Rose are the 616 Mantis who was dimension-hopping at the time.

Does it explicitly state the words "Justice League of America", "Aquaman", "Atom" (Ray Palmer), "Elongated Man" or "The Construct" (Ditto the Scorpion Rose issue)? Or was it vague language that implied but didn't actually SAY it?

vanhornluke wrote:Regarding Savage Dragon, I wasn't saying that the story published by Image is 616. I was saying the story in Spider-Man Team-Up is 616. Savage Dragon appears in that issue of SMTU, and since it's not an interdimensional crossover story, that's the Savage Dragon from 616, not Image. There's no need to include a Howard-clone for Marvel, since that story only takes place in the Destroyer Duck issue, which is in Image's continuity, not 616.

So, where in SMTU 5/2 is the "big green cop" identified as Savage Dragon? Could be anyone. ;p

vanhornluke wrote:They've also said that the appearances of Mantis in issues of Justice League of America and Scorpio Rose are the 616 Mantis who was dimension-hopping at the time.

Does it explicitly state the words "Justice League of America", "Aquaman", "Atom" (Ray Palmer), "Elongated Man" or "The Construct" (Ditto the Scorpion Rose issue)? Or was it vague language that implied but didn't actually SAY it?

It explicitly states the words "Lorelei" and "Willow" (under aliases). Those are the names of non-Marvel characters. And the bibliography for Quoi's entry explicitly names Justice League of America #142 and Scorpio Rose #2. (http://marvel.com/universe/OHOTMU:Bibliography-AZ8#Quoi)

vanhornluke wrote:We have plenty of other precedent for Marvel officially declaring that stories they can't legally reprint are 616. For example, they've said that DC vs. Marvel and JLA/Avengers are 616.

Which was made clear AT THE TIME (i.e., in mutual arrangement with DC) in both cases. Hell, Busiek even referenced JLA/A in an arc of JLA he wrote afterward.

Plus, again, policy: We cover interuniversal crossovers, where appropriate. Not "shared universe" crossovers (again, Red Sonja's existence in the Marvel Universe predates Dynamite's existence, and the series is an explicit sequel to a story published while Marvel had the rights, so the combination grandfathers it in).

Yes, but the objection was that Marvel can't say that something is 616 if they don't have complete legal control over it. I provided several counterexamples to that objection. And yes, they are interuniversal rather than shared-Earth stories, but the legal point is the same. If Marvel can editorially declare that a story they don't have legal control over is 616, then that shows that they have the right, should they wish to do so, to say that about Punisher/Archie, too. The fact that it's a shared-Earth story is legally irrelevant.

And again, I agree with the general policy of assuming that any shared-Earth intercompany crossover is set on 7642, unless Marvel says it isn't. Marvel has explicitly placed Punisher/Archie on 616, so to instead insist that it is 7642 is incorrect. That's why I left it out of the 7642 chronologies in this thread. I wasn't arguing that it should be placed in the 616 Punisher's chronology. If you want Punisher-616's chronology to be complete, then it should be there, but if you want to leave a gap in his chronology, that's your right.

This whole debate is somewhat bewildering to me. It's not like I am arguing that the Punisher/Archie crossover is 616 because I want it to be. I've already said that I think it makes more sense for it to have been placed on 7642. Rather, I'm arguing that Punisher/Archie is 616 because Marvel says it's 616. I think that decision was strange, but it's their decision to make. To insist otherwise is just to be mistaken.

vanhornluke wrote:Yes, but the objection was that Marvel can't say that something is 616 if they don't have complete legal control over it. I provided several counterexamples to that objection. And yes, they are interuniversal rather than shared-Earth stories, but the legal point is the same. If Marvel can editorially declare that a story they don't have legal control over is 616, then that shows that they have the right, should they wish to do so, to say that about Punisher/Archie, too. The fact that it's a shared-Earth story is legally irrelevant.

I never said anything about Marvel can't say anything is or is not MU. I said what we cover as a matter of policy.

If you want the precise wording of our policy, it's pinned to the top of this forum and has been for nearly eight and a half years:

When the Marvel Universe crosses over with another Company's universe it must be presented as two separate universes crossing, not existing in the same universe, to qualify for a listing.(such as JLA/Avengers) In such a case, we'll only list the Marvel characters as we're the MARVEL Chronology Project.

The only reason Spider-Man/Red Sonja is treated as an exception is that it's framed in such a way - not least in that it's a sequel to a 1979 Marvel Team-Up story - such that we can treat it as the pre-existing MARVEL UNIVERSE Red Sonja, not the DYNAMITE Red Sonja.

To consider breaking from that policy, you would need to show us evidence, essentially, that it was ALWAYS intended to be MU (what I was getting at before).

The basis of your argument to convince us to break policy (that crossover stories must show crossover universes) involves breaking another policy first (that Marvel doesn't tell us that stories are canon).

The basis of your argument to convince us to break policy (that crossover stories must show crossover universes) involves breaking another policy first (that Marvel doesn't tell us that stories are canon).

Again, I haven't tried to convince you to break your policy. If I were doing that, I would be arguing that Punisher/Archie should be in Punisher-616's chronology. I haven't argued for that, since you're free to leave a gap in his chronology if you want. All I've argued is that Punisher/Archie should not be placed in Punisher-7642's chronology, since it's a 616 story rather than 7642.

And what is the basis for this claim that "Marvel doesn't tell us that stories are canon"? That claim seems to be clearly mistaken, since Marvel has done that repeatedly in the handbooks and indices. To give just one of many possible examples, the Avengers Index clearly states that D'Artagnan-616 last appeared in Marvel Classics Comics #12, establishing that issue of MCC as 616. Since it's just an adaptation of a classic novel, one might have thought that it's not a 616 story, but the Avengers Index clarifies that it is in fact 616.

vanhornluke wrote:They've also said that the appearances of Mantis in issues of Justice League of America and Scorpio Rose are the 616 Mantis who was dimension-hopping at the time.

Does it explicitly state the words "Justice League of America", "Aquaman", "Atom" (Ray Palmer), "Elongated Man" or "The Construct" (Ditto the Scorpion Rose issue)? Or was it vague language that implied but didn't actually SAY it?

It explicitly states the words "Lorelei" and "Willow" (under aliases). Those are the names of non-Marvel characters. And the bibliography for Quoi's entry explicitly names Justice League of America #142 and Scorpio Rose #2. (http://marvel.com/universe/OHOTMU:Bibliography-AZ8#Quoi)

Another example is in the bibliography section of the Marvel Legacy 1960s handbook. In the part for the Delinquent/Infant Terrible, two issues of the French comic series Special-Zembla are cited by name.